Branko Badrljica schrieb: > William Hubbs wrote: >> If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that >> there is a major regression and the package should be masked. On the >> other hand, if the new network scripts do not work, I don't see that as >> a show stopper. Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about >> turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking >> the ebuild, unless I am missing something. If I am, definitely let me >> know. > I don't feel comfortable with your philosophy. It doesn't matter how > obvious matters seem to you, your changes can affect many people in many > situations and configurations, not necessarily allways without unforseen > consequences. > > I understand that Gentoo is not for pussies and that you can't make an > ISO-9001 procedure for every change with every user, but it would really > be nice to have at least some _basic_ safety, like mentioning changes in > eselect news, or at least on home page of the package.
I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from them and you should be able to use bugzilla. Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead. Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but forcing the testing tree to be a second stable tree, just with newer package versions isnt our goal nor does it help anyone. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
